Issue No. 9 (2005) — Independent Articles 2005
Introduction
On 18 September 2001, a public meeting on the Sunshine Coast debated the proposed plans to develop a three kilometer un-sealed local road. The meeting was convened by representatives of the Maroochy Shire Council (MSC), and had been catalysed by the local university’s public opposition to the development of this road over the previous twelve months. At this public meeting, a University representative made an impassioned speech about the 'natural values' that would be destroyed by the sealing of the road. He argued in favour of an amended proposal which would significantly change the proposed road’s route, thus allowing the unsealed road space to continue as a ‘wildlife corridor’ between the University and the National Park. However, the University representative failed to rally residents’ support for this plan to re-route the road. The residents largely ignored the natural values arguments and instead supported the developer’s intentions to build the road as originally planned. This paper explores the grounds of disagreement between the University and residents over the fate of the road, in relation to the 'imaginary places' which were at stake in the dispute.
The notion of 'imaginary places' recognises the necessarily culturally mediated experiences we have of the environments we inhabit. From this perspective, the environment is not simply an objective phenomenon which we all experience in the same way. Instead, we attribute meanings which are often mistaken for something that is objectively real, which can contribute to a failure to recognise the validity of meanings attributed by others. This perspective challenges the false dichotomy between the notions of the 'natural' environment and the 'built' environment that is often at the heart of urban and other environmental issues , and calls into question what actually constitutes the 'the environment' and what is truly 'natural' (Irwin 3-5). Thus not only is the environment as an objective phenomenon being called into question, so too are ideas of 'objective' environmental problems (see for instance: Hajer; Hannigan; Harre; Liberatore; Murphy; Redclift and Woodgate).
From this perspective, the conflict was underpinned by two quite distinct imaginary places to which both the University and residents had strong commitments. The failure of the University and residents to recognise each other’s imaginary places fuelled their respective convictions of holding the 'high moral ground' in the debate. While the MSC and developer undoubtedly had various political, commercial and other agendas underpinning their involvement in this dispute, the focus of this discussion is the University and the residents, and specifically, their two distinct 'imaginary places' that were at play. These imaginary places are not spatially identical, and the meanings given to the respective spaces varied considerably. Accordingly, the road and its fate also differ in meaning in relation to these imaginary places.
Background
In late 2000, a local conflict in Sippy Downs, a newly developing area of the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, emerged over the intentions of the adjacent residential estate developer to develop Claymore Road. Claymore Road was at that time a dead-end dirt road about three kilometers in length (see Fig. 1). The Mooloolah River National Park ran along its entire length on one side. On the other side of the road for about one kilometer was the new housing estate, Chancellor Park, followed by the University of the Sunshine Coast campus grounds for another kilometer, and finally for the last few hundred metres were the grounds of the proposed new high school. The development of this road had been planned for more than a decade, and a High Court challenge in 1989 had confirmed the developer’s obligation to develop the roads adjacent to their estate property (Barnes; Dickson Sippy Downs Meeting). This road had been incorporated into the urban design of the estate, and at the time of the dispute more than half of the estate had been built. Legally, a change to the plan could be achieved only by a consensus supported by both the MSC and the Chancellor Park developers.
Figure 1
Over 2000 and 2001, in discussions between the University, the developer and the MSC as part of overall planning for the area, the University began to argue against the development of this road (Thomas Cooperation Needed 32; Thomas Elections Crucial 36; Thomas Focus on Green 30; Thomas Sippy Downs Future 34). The Vice Chancellor, as a representative of the University, began to refer to this issue in the University’s regular column in the local newspaper, The Sunshine Coast Daily. Concerns about the fate of the kangaroos that moved between the National Park and campus grounds were raised (Thomas Focus on Green 30). Largely in response to pressure from the University, the MSC put forward a proposed amendment which would quite substantially change the route of the road. The University offered to allow some University grounds to be subsumed for the amended route, as there was no public land available to exercise this option (see Fig. 1). This new proposal was to re-route Claymore Road around the opposite side of the University grounds, along the south and west sides, and thus also along the campus borders with the residential estate and the existing primary and high schools. An undeveloped, or 'natural', interface between University grounds and the National Park would thus be preserved. At this time, the University was already referring to the space currently occupied by the unsealed Claymore Road as a ‘wildlife corridor’ (Thomas, National Park 40).
A public meeting was then called by the MSC for 18 September 2001, to canvass public views on the matter. In the lead up to the meeting, the University continued to put forward their natural values arguments through the local newspaper. The day before the public meeting, the developer released a media statement to the local newspaper, arguing in favour of the original plan. He also letter-box dropped a flyer to the estate residents, urging them to attend the meeting, and to support the original development plan of Claymore Road. The flyer stated that a speed limit of 40km/h would ‘safeguard the kangaroos’ (Dickson Residents Urged). The meeting attracted about 100 local residents. A MSC representative chaired this public meeting with a speaking platform they had organised beforehand, involving a MSC representative, a representative of the University, and the developer (see MSC).
The first speaker at the meeting was a MSC representative who explained the tabled plan for Claymore Rd and also the proposed amendment. He also briefly referred to the broader transport planning issues that might affect Claymore Rd and the Sippy Downs area specifically, although pointed out that these plans were still embryonic. Next, the Vice Chancellor spoke on behalf of the University position. He argued strongly against the development of the current route of Claymore Rd, and in favour of the proposed amendment. The following MSC speaker discussed a kangaroo survey that had been commissioned and paid for by the developer to allay University and public concerns about the risks of the developed road to the kangaroos (Ingram). Finally, the developer addressed the meeting. He stated bluntly that he had the legal right to develop the road and he had every intention of doing so. In the question time that followed, residents did not engage with the natural values position put forward by the University representative, and clearly supported the developer’s intention to develop the road along the original route. The MSC did not reveal their policy preferences at this meeting.
The Imaginary Place Of The Universtiy: Overcoming the ‘Town-Gown’ Distinction.
Central to the identity of the University has been its challenge to the traditional ‘town-gown’ distinction (Thomas Elections Crucial 36; USC Strategic Plan). The success of this challenge was reliant on its functional and spatial integration into the 'community', in which the kangaroo and the newly-built Innovation Centre had become emblematic. The Innovation Centre had been built just inside the front entrance of the campus (see Fig. 2), across the road from the proposed Sippy Downs Town Centre (see Fig. 3). These emblems indicated the strong emphasis on environmental and regional economic development matters implicated in the identity of the University, involving a triad of the University, the proposed Sippy Downs Town Centre and the National Park. For the University, the integration of the National Park into the University grounds through permanently securing the unsealed road as a ‘wildlife corridor’ was the ‘final piece of the jigsaw’ (Thomas Unique Partnership) of this triad. This identity for the University substantially shaped the imaginary place in which the unsealed Claymore Road was located.
Figure 2
Figure 3
A core value listed in the University’s Strategic Plan states a ‘commitment to developing the University and its surrounds as an environmentally sensitive exemplar’ (USC Strategic Plan). To this end, the University had been involved in the Sustainability in Higher Education project and had recently become a signatory to the Talloires Declaration (USC University First 4). Environmental sustainability issues had guided much of the development of the University’s built environment and the grounds. For instance, the University buildings had incorporated environmentally-sensitive design principles (Thomas Taking the Time 29; Thomas Planning the Future 39), and the campus grounds subjected to environmental restoration to transform a former cane field into a nature reserve (see Fig. 4). The restoration process had involved re-vegetation programs, the construction of wetlands from the irrigation ditch-riddled paddocks, and the establishment of ecological processes for cleaning ground water moving from the campus into the neighbouring National Park (Thomas Planning the Future 39; Thomas University Lake 43). Kangaroos and other wildlife were prominent around and amongst the built structures. Signs on all entrances to the University and throughout the campus grounds alerted people to the presence of wildlife and requested they exercise care in relation to it.
Figure 4
The role of environmental exemplar was also extended to the local area surrounding the University. In the regular newspaper column, the ‘environmental uniqueness’ of Sippy Downs was referred to, and also the opportunity to ‘create a unique, sustainable environment at Sippy Downs’ (Thomas Sippy Downs Future 34). Central to this integration of environmental objectives into the community was the confirmation of what was already referred to as a ‘wildlife corridor’ (Thomas National Park 40) between the University grounds and the National Park. The corridor was the route of the unsealed Claymore Road, and it was the only boundary of the University not already committed to development. From the University perspective, this corridor was crucial in several ways to its role as environmental exemplar, particularly with respect to the seamless integration of the University, as nature reserve, into the National Park through the wildlife corridor.
The significance of the wildlife corridor to the University was quite complex, drawing upon several strands of western environmentalism (see Hajer; Harre; Liberatore; Murphy; Redclift and Woodgate). One strand was biocentric environmentalism, where the non-human world is accorded an intrinsic worth of an equal or even higher value than humanity. From this perspective, the use-value attributed to the 'natural' world by people was seen to have caused unwelcome environmental change, such as ecological degradation and species depletion. Another strand was romantic environmentalism, in which the natural environment is seen as something inherently valuable for the experience it can offer people. That is, the natural environment is understood as ‘outside’ the social world and as such, is a source of spiritual replenishment (Harvey 174; Hajer; Pepper). The current ‘corridor’ annexed the National Park to the campus grounds, thus providing a large area of relatively unbroken habitat in which flora and fauna could flourish. This corridor had allowed for easy access for kangaroos between the campus and the Park, and kangaroos had become a readily visible presence amongst the campus buildings and their surrounds (see Figs. 4 and 5). Continuing their presence through maintenance of the ‘corridor’ satisfied both biocentric and romantic environmentalism: the kangaroo as intrinsically valued wildlife whose habitat had been preserved, and the kangaroo as 'nature' that could be 'directly' experienced by all who entered the campus grounds (Thomas Planning the Future 39).
Figure 5
A third strand is ecological environmentalism. This refers to the understanding of the natural world through western scientific knowledge, and in which the planet is seen as a semi-closed physical system whose integrity is essential for maintaining all life. From this perspective, the preservation of the ecosystem at local levels has global ramifications for maintaining the planet as a life support system, as has been represented in ecological global sustainability discourse (Harvey 174; Hajer; Pepper). As such, maintaining the wildlife corridor would preserve 'intact' the region encompassed by the National Park and the campus grounds, contributing to the preservation and protection of a local eco-system, and thus also to the maintenance of the integrity of the global ecosystem. Again, the kangaroo is emblematic, in this instance in terms of habitat protection for local flora and fauns at both local and global levels. In these ways, the wildlife corridor between the University and the National Park is a linchpin in overcoming the ‘town-gown’ divide on environmental matters (Thomas National Park 40; Thomas Focus on Green 30; USC Strategic Plan; USC University First), where (proposed) town centre and University are geographically connected with an extended natural reserve region, and in terms of University involvement in the environmental integrity of the region.
The wildlife corridor also had environmental implications for sustainability in urban design for the local area, particularly in relation to the proposed Sippy Downs Town Centre. The University had long been involved in discussions with the MSC over the development of the nearby Sippy Downs Town Centre (Thomas Cooperation Needed 32; Thomas Elections Crucial 36; Thomas Focus on Green 30; Thomas Sippy Downs Future 34). Consistent with objectives of sustainable development as indicated in the Strategic Goals of the University, environmental urban matters such as minimisation of motorized transport and encouragement of pedestrianisation had been discussed, as part of an overall environmentally sensitive urban centre (Thomas Unique Partnership 29; Thomas Sippy Downs Future 37). However the centre-piece of the environmental exemplar for the Town Centre was the seamless extension of the 'natural' areas of the National Park and University into the Town Centre. This environmental triad involving the University, National Park and Town Centre was dependent upon the establishment of the wildlife corridor.
Noticeably absent in this imaginary place was a sense of relationship between this triad and the Chancellor Park estate which bordered the University along most of two of its sides. This is quite interesting as the University and developers had already worked together on several environmental projects, including collaboration over the joint lake system which spans over both grounds and the movement of ground water into the National Park (see Figs. 4 and 6). However, clearly the estate was outside the University imaginary place while the proposed town centre featured quite largely. This can be explained in relation to the identity of the University as having a major role in the economic development of the region, in which the Innovation Centre was still emblematic.
Figure 6
A core function of the University is to play a significant role in regional economic development, as a champion of the new 'relevant' university that is more 'responsive' to the 'community'. This approach to 'responsiveness' reflects current Federal Government policy which places great emphasis on strong links between the University and the private sector to re-shape the relationship between university and 'community'. This goal is noted in the University Mission Statement and Strategic Plan (USC Strategic Plan). Regional economic development is a particularly salient issue for this University, as it is located in a rapidly growing regional area of comparatively high unemployment and under-employment (Barker, Ward and Moore). The University aims to assist in the diversification of the local economy from its current dependence on hospitality and tourism and the building trade, to export-oriented high technology small businesses. The Innovation Centre was a linchpin in this plan.
The aim of the Innovation Centre was to provide a functional interface between the University and the community, in generating and sustaining small business and thus also improving regional employment prospects. This role for the Innovation Centre is clearly laid out in the Strategic Plan 2001-2005. For instance, the ‘Priority Objectives for 2001-2005’ states the first economic objective as, ‘developing a regional business incubator and technology park in partnership with governments and business’ (USC Strategic Plan). This objective is supported by statements made in the Vice Chancellor’s regular newspaper column (Thomas Unique Partnership 29; Thomas Innovation Centre 37). Spatially, the building has been located along side the front entrance of the University (see Fig. 2), which is also directly across the road from the proposed Sippy Downs Town Centre (see Fig. 3). This location is significant for providing a spatially 'seamless' integration between University and the commercial and business centres of the proposed town. In these functional and spatial senses, the ‘town-gown’ divide was to be overcome.
At the 18 September public meeting, the presentation made by the University representative focused exclusively on the natural values that would be preserved through allowing the current Claymore Road to 'remain' a wildlife corridor. This argument was used to support the building of the alternative route for Claymore Road. Implicit in the presentation was the imaginary place in which the University had so much at stake, but an imaginary place not in the imagination of the residents at the meeting.
The Imaginary Place Of Residents: Where we ‘Live, Work and Play’
Residents on the whole ignored the natural values arguments presented by the University representative at the 18 September public meeting. Hostility to the proposed amendment to the route of Claymore Road was heatedly expressed, and the developer’s position was soundly endorsed. This development can be understood in relation to the imaginary place in which Claymore Road was located for residents at this meeting. For residents, their imaginary placed was one where they ‘lived, worked and played (Novotny), or at least 'lived and played'. That is, it was a personal and domestic space where families lived their daily lives. Natural and built environmental values were linked to this imaginary place and were shaped by the socio-cultural background of the residents, in this instance mainly in terms of utility value for family needs. Accordingly, Claymore Road had meaning in relation to this imaginary place, such as safety and convenience for their domestic lives.
The emphasis on ‘where we live, work and play’ was demonstrated in the residents’ response to the issues raised on the speaking platform at the 18 September public meeting. The natural values position was ignored, and instead a range of utilitarian issues were raised about Claymore Road as well as some other aspects of the built environment on the estate, including traffic around the local schools. One important issue in relation to Claymore Road concerned access on and off the estate (see Fig. 1). This was a practical issue as the residential area of the estate was otherwise in a virtual cul-de-sac, as other boundaries of the estate were physically constrained from access road development. Along the west side was the Bruce Highway, and there was an ecologically-sensitive waterway and bushland along the southern end. To the north and east were the existing school grounds, University grounds, and a busy local road. The current route of Claymore Road would provide an access on and off the estate three kilometers from the existing one, and had good potential for connecting with other local roads that would facilitate road transit through the surrounding area. Concerns were raised by residents about the alternative proposal which would locate the second access on and off the estate only about one and a half kilometers away from the original one, and also right in the heart of the new proposed town centre.
Another important issue for residents was the potential repercussions within the estate should the alternative proposal proceed. The repercussions about which they expressed concern included a range of safety, health, and convenience issues that could arise. More than half the infrastructure of the estate had been built by this time, and designed on the assumption that the original proposal for Claymore Road would proceed. Residents were worried that existing infrastructure would not readily accommodate the alternative proposal. For instance, residents raised concerns about the potential for increased traffic flow, higher vehicular traffic speeds, and increases in air pollution to which parts of the residential areas would be exposed, through changes made to the estate road system to accommodate the proposed alternative route. Residents also noted that the amended route could bring high speed traffic and accompanying problems such as noise and pollution along the borders of the two school yards in the area.
The issues raised by residents, together with the silence on those raised by the University representative, suggest that the imaginary place of residents at the meeting had spatial parameters which corresponded with the property boundaries of the estate. This sense of boundary is not necessarily inevitable. For instance, an ecological perspective constructs qualitatively different kinds of boundaries, such as water tables. However the seeming intuitive sense of property boundaries can be understood in relation to the meaning of the estate to the residents, as a place where they ‘live, work and play’. In this imaginary place, the residential areas, commercial centres, and schools were included, but not necessarily the University or (proposed) town centre. Very few residents had any involvement with the University or any reason to be on the campus grounds beyond use of the walking and bike paths. In this sense, the University was not part of this imaginary place.
The emphasis on convenience, safety and practicality in relation to Claymore Road and the built environment in general was also reflected in the approach of the residents to the natural environment. The developers had encouraged the development of natural values in the estate through various means, including road-side and traffic island tree plantings of mostly native plants (see Fig. 7). Large open green spaces and forest areas had been positioned throughout the estate and along the lake system (see Figs. 6 and 8). The lakes were being developed as an ecological, rather than industrial, cleaning system for ensuring good water quality of estate ground water reaching the National Park. Pathways and foot bridges provided easy and direct access for pedestrians and bike-riders throughout the estate (see Figs. 8 and 9). The developer had offered new home builders a substantial financial rebate for planting a lawn and garden bed in the front garden area. While the policies of the developer no doubt were influenced to some degree by commercial incentives, nonetheless the grounds of the estate under the control of the developer reflected natural values in these ways. The overall affect of public spaces was green, leafy and colourful, while also rich in micro-habitats for wildlife. However, at that time the kinds of natural values built into the design of the estate had not been followed through to any great extent by many of the residents. Instead a more utilitarian approach was more common.
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Viewed from the street, it could be seen that there were few trees planted in the front or back yards. The often meagre plantings in the otherwise grassed expanses of the front yards usually consisted of palms, and hardy shrub and groundcover exotics (see Fig. 10). Back yards were also usually grassed expanses, and even in parts of the estate two to three years old rarely did bushes and tree-tops appear over fences (see Fig. 11). The overall affect was comparatively bare, even though plants grow comparatively quickly in this sub-tropical climate. This approach to garden design indicated the utilitarian value attributed to yards, often as extended work or hobby sites, or uninterrupted grassy spaces for above-ground pools or children’s outdoor games. There was very little sense of yards as potential habitats for local flora and fauna, or a site for natural values in any other way. Trees along the road edges and garden-filled traffic islands were generally neglected by residents, often weed-filled and containing the remains of plants that had died (see Fig. 12). There were a number of factors that can help account for this seemingly utilitarian approach to yards and the nearby flora. A large number of residents were in rental accommodation, and may have been reluctant to 'improve' the owner’s or developer’s investment at their own expense. Furthermore, owners of rental properties often prefer low-maintenance and low-cost gardens for their tenants. In addition, the houses in this estate had been built on slabs, so caution needed to be exercised in the planting of gardens and trees. However, another factor worth noting was the socio-cultural background of many of the residents.
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
In western societies, environmental values regarding the intrinsic worth of the natural environmental and concern about biocentric environmental matters have been largely a middle-class concern. For instance, conservation movement participants have been predominantly of middle-class background. Furthermore, middle class residential areas are very likely to be comparatively heavily planted with flora, with an emphasis on habitat and wild food provision – in other words, attracting the birds and other welcome wildlife (Novotny; Harvey). The natural values design of Chancellor Park was more likely to appeal to a middle class cohort rather than to the lower socio-economic groups actually in residence on the estate at the time of the dispute. Like many other parts of the Sunshine Coast, the high population growth in this area was mainly fuelled by migration of people from other parts of Australia, predominantly from working class and lower middle class backgrounds, such as the building and hospitality industry (Stimpson and Taylor; Barker, Ward and Moore). The utilitarian approach of many of the residents to the natural environment, and precedence of practical matters of the built environment over the natural one, can be understood to some extent on the basis of this socio-economic background.
For residents, Claymore Road had meaning in relation to this imaginary place of where they ‘live and play’ and it spatially corresponded to the property boundaries of the actual estate. Furthermore, the majority of those who had settled in the estate in 2000 had no necessary connection with the university, but rather had sought an affordable and appropriate place to raise their families. The appeals to natural values presented by the University representative to defend the ‘wildlife corridor’ violated the integrity of domestic life, through the apparent threats to family safety, health and convenience. That the appeals came from the University, which was essentially outside their imaginary place, helps to explain the sense of outrage expressed by residents at the meeting.
Conflicting Imaginary Places
This discussion shows that the imaginary place of the University was strongly shaped by the triad of Town Centre, University and National Park, through the prisms of the ‘wildlife corridor’ and Innovation Centre, to foster the desired integration between ‘town’ and ‘gown’. The Chancellor Park estate as a place where residents ‘lived, worked and played’ had no part in this imaginary place, notwithstanding some cooperation between University and developer over, for instance, the joint lake system. Furthermore, the proposed re-routing of Claymore Road involved placing a material barrier (a potentially busy road) between the estate and the University-Town Centre-National Park triad. Moreover, calls for further ‘community cooperation’ by the University refer to the MSC, developer and University with no mention of the residents. The 'estate' accordingly was a potential source of corruption for interfering with the University’s identity as environmental exemplar to a national and international community. Thus the moral outrage about the violation of this imaginary place that the building of Claymore Road as planned would constitute.
The virtual invisibility of the residents’ experience of the estate in the University’s imaginary place was also apparent in the presentation made by the University representative to the public meeting. The presentation involved a slide-show consisting of beautifully photographed close-ups of local flora and fauna. Very little discussion or explanation accompanied these slides, letting the images themselves ‘speak’ the natural values case. However, this strategy proved unsuccessful in persuading residents of the case for re-routing Claymore Road. The images had little resonance with the residents’ own imaginary place as their concerns about the road were of a social rather than ecological nature. Furthermore, this natural values presentation violated residents’ imaginary place through the failure to recognise the importance of the estate as a site where residents conducted their personal lives with their families. Thus the natural values argument actually constituted a threat to their quality of family life, and ignored their own experience, that is, their imaginary place. Residents were morally outraged that the needs of flora and flora would be put before the needs of their families and their quality of life.
Clearly, quite different environmentalisms were operating in this conflict, both backed by moral claims about their respective causes. How the 'environment' is defined and experienced emerges from socially situated contexts that vary over time, place and culture, amongst other factors. Furthermore, environmental 'problems' also are socially constructed in complex social, economic and political milieu and thus instances of competing environmentalism are virtually endemic to environmental-related conflicts. For example, stewardship and utilitarian approaches towards the environment as a source of resources for human-use has been an important environmentalism in developed societies. This form of environmentalism has been challenged by preservationist environmentalisms, where the value of the environment is inversely proportional to the degree of human intervention that has impacted upon it. In this case, 'wilderness' is accorded the highest value (Pepper; Hajer; Liberatore). The environmentalisms in conflict over the development of Claymore Road reflect this tension between utilitarian and preservationist approaches, specifically, how the land area and built structures would contribute to an appropriate physical and social environment.
Furthermore, this conflict over Claymore Road, although a very local one, exemplifies the capacity for social justice and environmental integrity issues to be in conflict with each other (Harvey; Novotny; Hannigan). Biocentric, ecological, and other nature-centred environmentalists have often claimed that environmental integrity should precede social considerations, as environmental integrity is absolutely vital to the capacity of the planet to maintain the conditions for life. At more local levels, similar arguments have been framed to defend local habitats and vulnerable flora and fauna species, on the basis of intrinsic worth of nature and for their role in the local and global ecosystem. However, alternative environmentalism have emerged which question this priority, instead arguing that social considerations and ecological ones need to be reconciled and not prioritized. For instance, in some developing nations, local environmental justice movements have opposed both national park zonings and large-scale mining operations, for their impoverishment of local peoples subsequently deprived of access to land for livelihood (Johnston). In developed nations, environmental justice movements have emerged to challenge the conventional environmental movement. The agenda of these movements focuses on the impacts of the built environment on the community, such as noise or air pollution issues, as well as concerns about the impacts of romantic and biocentric environmental protection strategies on their quality of life. There is a class dimension to this issue, as the movements tend to emerge from lower socio-economic communities as they have been more likely than higher socio-economic communities to be exposed to these problems (Novotny; Harvey). In both examples, social considerations such as justice are not sacrificed to the ecological.
This clash between environmental integrity and social consideration about environmental impact also characterised the Claymore Road conflict. The University’s case for a wildlife corridor was argued in relation to the various environmentalisms operating through the rubric of ‘environmental exemplar’. Environmental integrity in this instance refers to protection of local flora and fauna and ecological sustainability at local and global levels. This perspective was expressed through the prism of the University’s imaginary place, which served to increase their commitment to their own 'moral high ground' against any counter-claims. However, for the residents, the ‘wildlife corridor’ and re-routed Claymore Road had ramifications for the built environment on the estate for their quality of life. In this way, residents were posing an implicit environmental justice argument which rejected the imposition of biocentric and other natural values claims upon them. Residents were defending the imaginary place for the social expressions of family life and in particular the safety of children from the potential and unwelcome impacts of the interests of the nearby University and the associated environmental agenda.
The parties to this conflict had different and unequal power resources at their disposal. The University had access to a regular column in the local newspaper to publicly air issues and perspectives of its own choice. The MSC saw the University as having a legitimate role in long-term consultation and planning that was not afforded the residents at that time. Furthermore, the cultural capital available to the University was much higher than in the case of residents. It had ready access to professionally trained media consultants, and the resources to produce high quality materials such as slide-shows. The residents had comparatively less cultural capital and resources for developing a concerted response to the University’s proposed amendments to the development of Claymore Road. The estate was still in the early stages of development, opening about the same time as the University. The population was mostly newly arrived, and there was little network infrastructure through which the concerned residents could take collective action. Residents mainly relied on individual approaches to local politicians, and also to the developer whose office was quite accessible on site at that time.
Figure 13
In early 2004, a newly developed Claymore Road was opened for public use. The University had lost 'their' wildlife corridor, the residents and developer had won 'their' access road (see Fig. 13). In building the road, the MSC had made some concessions to the natural values concerns raised by the University. The now-sealed road contains two kangaroo tunnels to enable kangaroos and other wildlife to move (presumably) safely between the National Park and the University and new high school grounds (see Fig. 14). The tunnels are complemented by a tall metal fence erected along the entire length of Claymore Road, to inhibit wildlife from attempting road-crossing except at the tunnels (see Figs. 4 and 15). Current plans now under public consultation for the area include proposals for connecting Claymore Road with another road to provide access into the surrounding areas, and linking Claymore Road through on and off ramps to the adjacent high-speed traffic motorway (see Fig. 1).
Figure 14
Figure 15
In spite of these concessions by the MSC to the ecological concerns raised by the University management, fundamentally the university soundly lost this dispute in that they lost their ‘wildlife corridor’. The University may have been more successful had they been able to establish a dialogue with the residents about their respective imaginary places and what each had at stake in the debate. Dialogue in this instance refers to communication beyond mere discussion of issues, and instead aims to foster both recognition of, and credence for, others’ experiences and perspectives. The development of common frames is important to this process of dialogue (Littlejohn 337-40). As the arbiter in this dispute, the MSC did not establish the pre-conditions for dialogue: the public meeting was both too late and inadequate for the task. Concerned residents relied on the developer to articulate and protect their imaginary places in MSC forums to which the residents were not invited. The developer emerged as the residents’ hero in this dispute.
Ironically, by 2004, there were indications of a stronger natural values ethos amongst estate residents. Particularly along the newly developed lake-side allotments, but also on nearby streets, houses with beautiful and well-maintained gardens had begun to flourish. Higher house and land prices, and the further development of the area as an education precinct with the building of the new state school, contributed to a changing demographic and investment in the estate. In addition, on 19 November 2003 at a meeting of the newly formed Sippy Downs and District Community Association, the newly elected president stated that residents needed to be thinking about ways of preserving the beautiful natural surrounds of the estate. The outcome of the conflict over Claymore Road may have been different if fought in 2004 instead of 2001.
Elizabeth Eddy is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts and Social Science, University of the Sunshine Coast. She teaches in the areas of social and environmental justice, and her research interests include social movements and other civil society activism, and neo-liberal governance regimes.
Works Cited
Barker, Ross, Gary Ward and Iain Moore. "1996 Census Findings on Interstate Migration to Queensland Focusing on South-East Queensland". People and Place 6.4 (1998). <elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/pnpv6n4/barker.inc>.
Barnes, Ian. Information provided by Manager of Strategic Planning to the "Sippy Downs Information Meeting" at USC. 18 Sept. 2001.
Dickson, Evan. Information provided by Manager of Chancellor Park Estate to the "Sippy Downs Information Meeting" at USC. 18 Sept. 2001.
Dickson, Evan. "Residents Urged to Support Claymore Road". Media release from the Manager of Chancellor Park Estate, also letter-boxed to residents. 17 Sept. 2001.
Hajer, Maarten. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Hannigan, John A. Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective. London: Routledge, 1997.
Harvey, David. "The Environment of Justice", in Frank Fischer and Maarten A. Hajer (eds), Living With Nature: Environmental Politics as Cultural Discourse. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Harre, Rom, Jens Brockmeier and Peter Muhlausler. Greenspeak: A Study of Environmental Discourse. SAGE Publications, 1999.
Ingram, Glen and Associates. Eastern Grey Kangaroos and the Sunshine Coast University Environs [A report for Chancellor Park Estate]. 3 Feb 2001.
Irwin, Alan. Sociology and the Environment. Cambridge: Polity, 2000.
Johnston, Barbara Jones (ed). Life and Death matters: Human Rights and the Environment at the End of the Millenium. Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira Press, 1997.
Liberatore, Angela. "The Social Construction of Environmental Problems", in Pieter Glaserbergen and Andrew Blowers (eds), Environmental Policy in an International Context: Perspectives on Environmental Problems. London: Arnold, 1995.
Littlejohn, Stephen W. "The Transcendent Communication Project: Searching for a Praxis of Dialogue". Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21.3 (Spring 2004): 337-350.
Maroochy Shire Council. "Sippy Downs Information Meeting". Flyer advertising a public meeting for 18 September 2001: Maroochy Plan 2000 Round 1, Amendments. May 2001.
Murphy, Raymond. Sociology and Nature: Social Action in Context. Oxford: Westview Press, 1997.
Novotny, Patrick. Where We Live, Work and Play. London: Praeger, 2000.
Pepper, David. Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1996.
Redclift, Michael and Graham Woodgate. The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997.
Stimpson, Robert and Shane Taylor. "Sunbelt Welfare: Geographic Patterns of Dependency on Additional Family Payments in Brisbane and the South-East Queensland Region". People and Place 4.4 (1996). <elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/pnpv4n4/stimson.inc>.
Thomas, Paul. Information provided by the Vice Chancellor of University of the Sunshine Coast to the "Sippy Downs Information Meeting" at USC. 18 Sept. 2001.
Thomas, Paul. "Sippy Downs Future at Stake". Sunshine Coast Daily 15 Sept. 2001: 34.
Thomas, Paul. "University Lake to be Extended". Sunshine Coast Daily 10 Nov. 2001: 43.
Thomas, Paul. "Unique Partnership Emerges". Sunshine Coast Daily 9 Dec. 2000a: 29.
Thomas, Paul. "Innovation Centre Top Priority". Sunshine Coast Daily 15 Apr. 2000: 37.
Thomas, Paul. "National Park Under Threat". Sunshine Coast Daily 23 Sept. 2000: 40.
Thomas, Paul. "Cooperation Needed on Green Corridor". Sunshine Coast Daily 19 Aug. 2000: 32.
Thomas, Paul. "Elections Crucial for University". Sunshine Coast Daily 11 Mar.2000: 26.
Thomas, Paul. "Focus on Green Surrounds". Sunshine Coast Daily 12 Aug. 2000: 30.
Thomas, Paul. "Taking the Time to Do It Right". Sunshine Coast Daily 5 Aug. 2000: 29.
Thomas, Paul. "Planning the Future Campus". Sunshine Coast Daily 24 June 2000: 39.
University of the Sunshine Coast. "University First to Join Global Green Team" Community Winter (2002).
University of the Sunshine Coast. "Strategic Plan 2001-2005". (c.2000). Publication of the University of the Sunshine Coast (includes the Mission Statement).